<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (9) TMI 704 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124800</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the addition of the cost of promotional items to the assessable value of tractors. The Tribunal held that unless there was evidence of a compulsory obligation on the dealer to purchase and distribute the promotional items, such costs should not be included in the assessable value. As no evidence of compulsion was found in the present case, the appeal was deemed meritless and dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2012 13:55:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 704 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124800</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the addition of the cost of promotional items to the assessable value of tractors. The Tribunal held that unless there was evidence of a compulsory obligation on the dealer to purchase and distribute the promotional items, such costs should not be included in the assessable value. As no evidence of compulsion was found in the present case, the appeal was deemed meritless and dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124800</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>